Gun control

[piracer]

So i might be blind but I'm surprised there hasn't been a gun control/Tuscon shooting topic since the whole incident.

I've been having arguments with a friend of mind over gun control, and to me, i don't see how you can argue against gun control - that its only common sense to have strict control over such dangerous tools.

My friend was saying that if the government did tighten their control over guns, it would be "un-American as it goes against the constitutional rights" which to me sounds like a very red-neck gun toting republican thing to say (yeah i know im stereotyping, but she is republican). What i cant wrap my head around is that she's such a peaceful loving person, who in her words "can never imagine ever being able to kill a human because its so... inhumane". But yet... guns can't be taken away from her even though she's never shot a gun and doesn't want to. I think its a whole paranoia thing that is infectious with Americans (from my one semester being here so far that i can tell). From what i can tell, you guys seem to really distrust your government, and for good reasons at time. But seriously, i know not everyone is like this, but when does common sense and reasoning somehow just get thrown out of the window?

Thoughts?

 

[Eyebrowsbv31]

It is an American "thing." Think of some films where the world is crap and some government (Children of Men or V for Vendetta is an example of this) has totalitarian control; an unarmed populace is helpless. Because of our history and our founders, it was placed into the Constitution that the people, basically, have the right to protect themselves from the government (but as George Carlin said, "the army has flamethrowers, I say we're fucked if we have to go up against the army"). And I know several hard core liberal democrats that are gun rights advocates; it's freedom, it's "liberty" to own a gun. It's not really a republican thing, it's apolitical.

Now, about this shooter and gun controls...nothing, nothing would have stopped him. He was batshit insane (no current politics, NONE have anything to do with this. If you believe "heated rhetoric" made him do it you're a fucking idiot), and had been for years. This isn't really a failure of gun control, but a failure of the mental health system in this country.

Honestly, considering the state and the location (there's a fucking drug war going on just south of the border, FYI), I'm surprised he wasn't able to get something like an AK47 or something automatic; I guess wal-mart doesn't carry those rounds.

I happen to be a "gun" fan, so to speak. I don't own any functional weapons right now, but even if i did I wouldn't go out and shoot people. Now, I don't think long clips should be allowed; and I believe he illegally modded his pistol to shoot fully automatic, but, yeah, it's just the way our country is. We have huge amounts of gun deaths in this country; we also have huge amounts of youth violence and crime in major cities across the country. <sarcasm> maybe we should blame the foriegners? <sarcasm>

 

[Longo_2_guns]

I don't want to get into this, because I'd win.

 

[Eyebrowsbv31]

I don't want to get into this, because I'd win.

Please do, I love a fight.

 

[used44]

I think I agree with some of the later things Eyebrows said.

*gasp!!!*

 

[Longo_2_guns]

Alright, well let me just start by saying I'm not really against gun ownership or whatnot. It's in the constitution after all.

That said, I believe in regulation. Hell, in the words "well regulated" are an important part of the second amendment. I don't want to waste a lot of time, but basically the fact that I can walk into a store, buy a gun, and then immediately shoot people with it without so much as a background check is preposterous. Basically, the model I wish we would follow is that if it's slow and hand loaded, ie pistols, some types of rifles and shotguns, etc, you can buy it with a background check. Anything semi-automatic, automatic, or magazine loaded needs a whole psychological profile before it could be legally sold.

Really, though this whole thing is kinda depressing to me. Not because of what happened, but how much people are blowing this out of proportion. Some people died. Big deal. Good people get killed every goddamn day.

 

[keepithowitis]

The second amendment, in my opinion, is one of the most outdated amendments in out constitution right now. However, it is practically the backbone of our country's civilian security.

A Japanese general once said it would be suicide to ever attack the U.S. on its own land because every civilian would stand up in the conflict, "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." I think the fact that we allow such freedoms is the reason we have the stereotypical "WOOHOO I LOVE AMERICA!!" beer-pounding, shotgun-waving hicks and rednecks all across the country, and also the reason we have the millions of men and women voluntarily signing up to join the armed forces or reserves, millions of soldiers that are simply not there in other countries, or reluctantly drafted in other countries (namely several in the EU). Although I am not at all patriotic, and don't care too much for America other than it being a nice place to live, I wouldn't hesitate to jump up and serve if the opportunity came up, and I feel that my view is shared by a majority of my peers. Even though our love for our country is stereotypical, it is also what keeps America so tightly bound and secure.

Also know that for every crazy guy with a gun that decides to shoot up a school, a meeting such as the recent Tucson tragedy, or the local ghetto, we have 10,000 others just trying to enjoy recreation, start a collection, or help to defend the country we call home. In my eyes, a rogue gunman is no different than a drunk or raging driver killing innocents, an ignorant parent watching their children degenerate more and more each day, or an unqualified worker whose blunder costs companies and families millions of dollars to fix. Not everybody can be a model citizen all the time.

 

[Bretimus_v2]

It's late, lots of opinion, very few statistics.

To start, crazies exist. The shallow end of our gene pool is prone to violence and capable of cruelty, willing to use a rock, blade, gun or even gas & a match. If it's not one thing, it'll be another. At the same time, it doesn't validate giving them more efficient means and tools, right? About as stupid as judging millions of other law-abiding people by select idiots' actions (applicable to guns, terrorism, and so on and so on).

Despite supporting the 2nd, I recognize that there is a lot of bullshit wrapped up in it. Lots of negligent loopholes and generous rulings that put us in jeapordy from people like this and ourselves. Proper education and regulation would make an amazing difference and when current regulations begin to protect us from the Now and not some Orwellian Future things will improve, in my tired opinion.

I'm sure I'll read this tomorrow and edit some things, Brett out.

 

[MattAY]

American shootings. How many?

Yeah. No control.

 

[maca2kx]

Now, I'm no scholar in American law and history so correct me if I'm wrong but the Constitution hasn't been changed since its inception, right?

While I was at university I was surprised that one of our important Acts (The Offences Against The Person Act) was written in 1861; youthful when compared to your Constitution. To say that it doesn't need updating is absurd.

As other posters have already said, there will always be crazies. Every country in the world has its share and they'll always be there. Having said that, why give them more tools than they already have? Cars will always be here because their use is required in the modern era. The same goes for most other things, but guns are required for killing things and nothing more. A rifle can be used for hunting but what can a fully automatic assault rifle or a concealable handgun be used for besides killing people?

It's my understanding that one of the reasons behind the 2nd amendment is to allow American citizens to fight back against either their government or invading forces should the need arise, correct? Well the amendment was ratified back in the days when the government had access to essentially the same bits of kit. Nowadays it has guided missiles, nuclear warheads and, as has already been mentioned, flamethrowers. None of those things are legal to the average citizen (thankfully). An uprising would quickly be squashed.

Course, it's an ideal world where it would actually be realistic to expect all or even some guns to be removed from public ownership in America but better control than this is needed.

 

[Longo_2_guns]

I'm going to bed right now, so I'm sure someone will get Maca's post before I get back, but not only has the constitution been changed several times, but they pretty much say that it isn't set in stone in the 10th amendment. And there's much, MUCH more to the second amendent than just "you can protect yourself from the government!" In fact, if you read the wording of it, the actual implication is considerably different.

 

[Eyebrowsbv31]

I think I agree with some of the later things Eyebrows said.

*gasp!!!*

I find this kind of insulting. :cry: I may not be a staunch leftist like urbs, but I'm not some fuckin' right wing nazi either. You'd probably agree with me 80% of the time, but the route there would be different.


@maca

All I can say in regards to automatic weapons is that, at least in my state (I think it's federal) automatic weapons that shoot automatic are illegal. I've fired an AR15, the civilian model of the M16 rifle, and that is what they are for; the feeling of firing that weapon was just amazing, the sound, the percussion, it's hard to describe; hell, that chick from Mythbusters was anti-gun til she fire off some rounds, changed her mind. I guess because Britons don't have the access to firearms like we do it's hard to understand the point of them.

The bigger problem is that people that own these guns own them lawfully and have no intention of shooting anyone. Most, if not all gun crimes could are committed by illegal owned firearms purchased off the streets, and considering how porous our border is with Mexico right now, I'm sure more than weed is finding its way across the border. I've seen images of gang-bangers (from crips and bloods to MS13 and dumbass skinheads) holding serious firepower, from AK's to rockets. You can't stop them from getting a hold of weapons as you can in a smaller country like England, so regulation is much like DRM for PC games, either way the pirates will get through.

And keepit, paragraphs man, paragraphs.

 

[UrbanMasque]

Staunch leftist?! You identify me as that - I don't align myself with a doctrine..tsk tsk eyebrows - you taint the only debate we probably fall on the same side of.

I DO beleive that we each have a right to own firearms, and that there shouldn't be any restrictions on owning (aside from previous convictions and mental illness). I own a gun, and would VIOLENTLY oppose anyone trying to take it away. Anyone who is going to go out and do something crazy will do it with whatever means they have available.

-Maca- An uprising WOULD be squashed eventually by the gov't, but they would take HEAVY losses. And knowing that their citizens are armed prevents them from making very rash decisions. Tons of civilians also know how to make everyday incendiary devices, Oklahoma City, so b/c we don't have nukes doesn't mean we don't have access to sufficient firepower (not legal - but still as accessible as a gun, maybe even moreso b/c there is no waiting period for materials).

Seriously, If someone was going to attempt to kill a public official im soooo glad it was another white American and not an illegal or someone with an ethnic sounding name. That would've mucked the discussion up even more. Not Politics, NOR WEED!!! made this a-hole do this. He was bonkers. So I ask you GR, What is government if words have no meaning?

Im rambling b/c im heading to work, but i hope it makes some kind of sense.
tl;dr
The pros for allowing your population to own a gun FAR exceeds the cons.

 

[Eyebrowsbv31]

^ Love you urb, I'm just taking a dig for all the times you like to pointless bring up FOX news in our discussions.

Making stuff that blows up is a very American thing too. Hell thousands of videos on youtube of PCP pipe flame throwers.

 

[Rakon]

Canadian moderate leftist time!!!


I think people have the right to own guns. I personally don't care to own one, so I won't. If you want to, by all means. It's a free country. That being said, regulation is immensely important, regardless the product. If a totally sane individual with no previous criminal record wants to own a gun, I say let him. Background checks and what have you are extremely important. It prevents things like this happening.

As for the whole rising up against the government, their rhetoric is easily their most powerful weapons, guns can just reinforce the point.

The second amendment is severely outdated IMO (so are a lot of other things, to be fair). Guns, like ANYTHING, should be regulated.

 

[Eyebrowsbv31]

^Like Canadian independence. We're coming for you! Yeeehaw!

 

[LinksOcarina]

I guess I am sort of neutral on the subject, although my personal belief is that gun control should be a regulated process. Right now in New York, for example, they need two or three different sources of identification, and do background checks for criminal records or psychology reports during the waiting period before they give out a gun. Once that happens though the guns keep flowing, so to speak. I can literally pick up a Glock with extended magazines if I wanted to, as long as I have the license.


I think there should be a limit on ammo capacity and gun "features" so to speak. I know some guys who are collectors and restorers of firearms and modify rifles and things to include scopes, compressed barrels, and so forth because they have the freedom to do so. The biggest problem is that if you ask me, coupled with above. Without regulation or a background check to get a license people shouldn't buy the guns, and when they do get their license it should have limitations on it too; maybe like a 2 gun max or have an actual renewal process after a year to make sure you are in the parameters of what you can legally buy.

That doesn't stop the illegal trade though, but that's a whole other issue. Suffice to say there does need to be some type of universal background check at the very least, and maybe a period for renewal, like leasing a car almost.

 

[Bretimus_v2]

All I know, is that when the zombies come I'll be the dude with 3 guns and MattAY will be hopelessly swinging a cricket bat while being mauled by a horde of the things.

 

[UrbanMasque]

The second amendment is severely outdated IMO.

I don't really think it is. If your talking about its intent - then it couldn't have been written any clearer. If your making the case that if the forefathers knew about sub-machine guns and semi automatics they would've worded it differently, I disagree.

They wrote it at a time when protecting yourself from tyranny literally meant arming yourself in preparation for self-defense due to unjust laws (at least the Tea partiers got that part right). True, they had muskets -flintlock rifles - and handguns, but they also had cannons available, revolvers, and a primitive version of the Gatling gun availbe to them (invented by James Puckle) - and they still chose to place no restrictions on that amendment.

The problem is you have no idea about anyone's intentions when they buy a gun, and creating a system that guesses would lead to all sorts of lawsuits about discrimination and gender/race biases. I think Gun laws are strict enough, too strict even.

To be fair I think AZ is a looooonneeyy place and a bad example for proper gun ownership. They are a "right to carry" state - and anyone can walk around with a weapon visible as long as its holstered. If you own a gun, keep it at home, bring it to the range, or to the field. You dont have to explain it or display it - this isn't the wild west, and the fact that it IS a right to carry state and NO ONE pulled on this clown, proves it. It didn't even deter him, because he started shooting at anyone who moved.

Driving a car is a luxury and can be taken away. Owning a gun is a right that is garunteed by the constitution. Good luck trying to change it.

 

[Bretimus_v2]

They are a "right to carry" state - and anyone can walk around with a weapon visible as long as its holstered. If you own a gun, keep it at home, bring it to the range, or to the field. You dont have to explain it or display it - this isn't the wild west, and the fact that it IS a right to carry state and NO ONE pulled on this clown, proves it.

So is Utah. Only once have I seen anyone try this. And the dude was wicked annoyed that he couldn't enter the movie theater. I mean, really? C'mon, dude.

They also made a law that your car can be considered an extension of your home, so you can legally carry a chambered weapon in your glove box without a CCP and you needn't tell an officer at a traffic stop unless you really want to tell him. Retarded. Noone needs a gun in their car. That makes less sense than needing one on your person.